I went to the GSD. I worked for Machado & Silvetti. I've recently moved to LA and people seem concerned/afraid that my credentials prove I'm 'corporate' and therefore untrustworthy/sticky slime(?) - that I wouldn't fit in their office because they have only 5 people, one of whom answers the phone, not much of a business plan, and fear that their office is a stepping stone.
What's the deal? Because I went to Harvard over UCLA, want to make a decent wage, and signed up and completed my IDP so I could one day call myself an architect is a bad thing?
It seems like we should be trying to succeed at design, business and building. Isn't that architecture?
eVo, good on ya. sounds like you'd be a catch. i don't even think your credentials sound especially corporate. at least not in the way that hok, hntb, crss, etc. are corporate.
it may just be that what you need as a salary is too expensive for a small firm and they're pitching a smokescreen, making you think it's you.
this is to address the title of your post, not the content of your entry.
Home Depot Film To Be Submitted To Sundance Film Festival
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
October 7, 2005 2:40 p.m.
--
ATLANTA (AP)--A documentary born of some Miami residents' fight to keep a Home Depot (HD) store out of their tree-lined stylish neighborhood is being considered for viewing at the Sundance Film Festival.
"Don't Box Me In," which runs just over half an hour, details the unsuccessful fight of Grove First, a Coconut Grove group, to keep the Atlanta-based home improvement chain from opening a store there.
Richard Fendelman, who was approached by the community activists' group to direct the film, said he tried to describe in a fair way the battle between Grove First and "development-friendly" city officials over the planned store's "ugly big box."
The movie contrasts the leafy, historic neighborhood with shots of sprawling, traffic-congested, overdeveloped Miami areas - and Home Depot parking lots.
The film premieres Friday in Coconut Grove. Fendelman was also given a one-week extension to submit the movie to the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, which will be held in January. Hundreds of entries compete for 16 documentary spots.
The first DVDs of the film will be handed out at Friday's premiere.
Home Depot spokesman Jerry Shields said the chain hoped for happier scenes once the store opens - though no opening time has been set yet.
"We can only hope that when the film is released on DVD that it will include bonus scenes of all the happy Coconut Grove residents enjoying their new Home Depot store," Shields said.
It's so easy to diss anything remotely seen as "corporate." I do it. But we often dismiss any organization with large scale and complexity of organization, perjoratively, as "corporate", and exchange knowing looks and rolling eyes.
But how do we define "corporate"? Or are there associations with corporate culture that we all too easily ascribe to any large or corporate organization? What specifically is the bad part? Common associations I can think of with "corporate", the Perjorative Version are:
- A lack of independent thinking and true creativity
- A focus on efficient use of labor and resources
- The maximization of profit at any expense
Obviously all shitty qualities, but always true? I'd venture a "no." Does big = corporate? maybe, I don't know. How do you draw the line? How does a giant corporation (say, one that handles a massive urban design project, or designs airports, hospitals, skyscrapers)
What do we know that MBA's don't? I think maximum efficiency and free creative thought are, sadly, often opposing forces, But do they have to be? Are there examples where they aren't?
But eVo - I agree with the others. You're just smart, and your definition of architecture - in my book - is spot on. People are just resistant because they realize you know your own value - and they're looking to save money (hm, sound kinda "corporate"?)
yeah, the same architect who thought his employees were gonna steal his clients proposed that he outsource our drafting to india -- the day i decided to quit
on the other hand, compare OMA with SOM (new, not old. they really rocked when the dudes still ran the show). no idea about the small-ish firms you were looking at but maybe they really believed you wouldn't fit in. they might have been intimidated too.
making the switch from money-led to design-led isn't easy. i had to go back to school and do a shit load of projects to erase my built history.
out of curiosity why quit the slightly corporate office you were at in favor of a small firm?
outside of architecture though corporate is an entirely different proposition. It is 500 dollar dinners every day, villa in south of italy for a few weeks a year, a flat in london, a flat in tokyo, a flat in new york and travelling betweeen them continuously. It is armani suits or wal-mart blue jeans, but you have a choice...there is no mcmansion (too cheap), no applebys (too shite), no allsizzlenosteak (impossible, only sizzle means you ain't got the goods so fuck off daddio) no donuts (too unhealthy), the bean counting IS the mission statement....AND the buggers i know who live like that are apparently happy as hell. pejorative would be stupid. The corporate lifestyle can be a fulfilling one...
but that isn't the way it works for architecture. nah, in architecture if your corporate your a shmuck. look at rem rip portman, watch the world (of decidley non-corporate young weens) scoff at childs, hear the neo-socialist rants of the 20th century greats and it is clear that corporate is a no-no. and yet there are more jobs in that end of things than the other, so what gives? its gotta be more than half of the firms that run on money and not on starchipower or its weak equivalent. and yet the mood persists. no wonder the wae baern is confused. porr harvard trained wae baern...
no worries. there is room for it all under this earth, and why not...
Thanks for your responses. Prior to recent events I haven't found myself confused by the term corporate (I hate Wal*Mart and strip malls as much as anybody) - what I really became confused at is how I became labeled as such, and why, based on my understanding of the term, and in the terms that others were using to describe it, it was such a bad thing. Namely, that 'corporate' would mean a general organization in terms of goals, structure and environment. Some how not wanting to work day to day wondering about getting paid (or getting paid too little) and spending my time filing rather than designing or pushing a project forward is better in their eyes because it's not corporate...
I suppose you guys are right and that it depends on the size of the office, but I'm attracted to offices because of their design presence, not their size. The problem then arrises b/c the size to design influence ratio often seems directly linked, at least in the eyes of the architects... like Jump suggests, and ultimately part of my confusion: are you corporate if you work for OMA, or FOGA?
MSA was a good office because the size (30) didn't affect the design, managers were also skilled designers and $ was forthcoming. That's ultimately what I'm looking for again, and you should too, because then there would be fewer complaints here about jobs and quality of life... I left because my fiancee had a great job offer out here.
That you are looking in LA is important, because while this city offers a lot in terms of experimentation, it also means that there are quite a few creative, financially marginal firms fighting it out. I've interviewed with a good number of firms that seemed anxious to attribute their firms lack of success to clients who are too unsophisticated to see their vision. By that same token they seem to think the success of their peers has to do with those successful firms having compromised their values in favor of money.
Bullshit I say. With your background, comments like that come out of a lack confidence by the person interviewing you.
JUMP,
You're right, there is room for everybody. Just make sure that your 'room'
is a buffer between my room & the board room....or in most cases, break/conferenc/training room.
it is a funny profession where we are taught to be designers then have to be businessmen and become confused with the idea that they are exclusive endeavours. I used to work for this guy link as a project architect, and as a designer it was one of the funnest times I have had working for someone else; but the experience also underlined the challenge of balancing business with design. The often complained about lack of job security has never bothered me, but the need for media savvy and an ability to understand the clients is something many small firms struggle with and really need to master if they want to take the next step. The challenge being how to do this without turning vanilla. OMA seems to be able to do it. SOM clearly didn't survive their bigification. For Matthew the struggle was/is a hard one, but I still have hopes...
anyway if you think Rem FOG Zaha Holl Eisenmann etc don't know how to talk with the corporate world you be crazy. That they manage to be creative in spite of this is amazing.
Putting a barrier between you and the corporate world is a strange choice cuz not all corporations wanna do shit. It is sort of like living in a gated community isn't it, then making fun of all the lads and lasses who didn't qulaify to be inside. the folk i work for have taste or at least the sense to recognise that they can hire mine, and i am happy to design for them. why not? I don't want to BE them or run my office like them, though I wouldn't mind earning as much as they do. When I'll be able to pay US$12000 a month rent for a flat i have no idea but in the meantime i will happily design the flats for the folk who can afford it...
I have no idea where that firm would get the impression that Macahado and Silvetti is corporate. They certainly do not fit the profile. I haven't seen any Machado and Silvetti spec office buildings yet.
I agree with the first two posts. I think by "corporate" s/he actually meant "successful." I always heard that Machado and Silvetti was more of a design-focussed boutique-type firm where you get worked like its a sweatshop. In any case, the business model certainly works to their advantage.
By the way, the Allston Library is effing gorgeous! If you worked on it, congratulations.
Oct 10, 05 8:09 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
What is so pejorative about 'corporate'?
I went to the GSD. I worked for Machado & Silvetti. I've recently moved to LA and people seem concerned/afraid that my credentials prove I'm 'corporate' and therefore untrustworthy/sticky slime(?) - that I wouldn't fit in their office because they have only 5 people, one of whom answers the phone, not much of a business plan, and fear that their office is a stepping stone.
What's the deal? Because I went to Harvard over UCLA, want to make a decent wage, and signed up and completed my IDP so I could one day call myself an architect is a bad thing?
It seems like we should be trying to succeed at design, business and building. Isn't that architecture?
eVo, good on ya. sounds like you'd be a catch. i don't even think your credentials sound especially corporate. at least not in the way that hok, hntb, crss, etc. are corporate.
it may just be that what you need as a salary is too expensive for a small firm and they're pitching a smokescreen, making you think it's you.
second that -- i've heard plenty of excuses that stand for "we're not hiring you but we're too afraid to tell you why"
you dodged a bullet, my (wo)man
oh, and the greatest fear of many a small-firm owner is the fear that his underpaid, overworked minions will get licenses and take his business away
which in my case is half true, i got a license
but he was paranoid
this is to address the title of your post, not the content of your entry.
Home Depot Film To Be Submitted To Sundance Film Festival
DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
October 7, 2005 2:40 p.m.
--
ATLANTA (AP)--A documentary born of some Miami residents' fight to keep a Home Depot (HD) store out of their tree-lined stylish neighborhood is being considered for viewing at the Sundance Film Festival.
"Don't Box Me In," which runs just over half an hour, details the unsuccessful fight of Grove First, a Coconut Grove group, to keep the Atlanta-based home improvement chain from opening a store there.
Richard Fendelman, who was approached by the community activists' group to direct the film, said he tried to describe in a fair way the battle between Grove First and "development-friendly" city officials over the planned store's "ugly big box."
The movie contrasts the leafy, historic neighborhood with shots of sprawling, traffic-congested, overdeveloped Miami areas - and Home Depot parking lots.
The film premieres Friday in Coconut Grove. Fendelman was also given a one-week extension to submit the movie to the 2006 Sundance Film Festival, which will be held in January. Hundreds of entries compete for 16 documentary spots.
The first DVDs of the film will be handed out at Friday's premiere.
Home Depot spokesman Jerry Shields said the chain hoped for happier scenes once the store opens - though no opening time has been set yet.
"We can only hope that when the film is released on DVD that it will include bonus scenes of all the happy Coconut Grove residents enjoying their new Home Depot store," Shields said.
It's so easy to diss anything remotely seen as "corporate." I do it. But we often dismiss any organization with large scale and complexity of organization, perjoratively, as "corporate", and exchange knowing looks and rolling eyes.
But how do we define "corporate"? Or are there associations with corporate culture that we all too easily ascribe to any large or corporate organization? What specifically is the bad part? Common associations I can think of with "corporate", the Perjorative Version are:
- A lack of independent thinking and true creativity
- A focus on efficient use of labor and resources
- The maximization of profit at any expense
Obviously all shitty qualities, but always true? I'd venture a "no." Does big = corporate? maybe, I don't know. How do you draw the line? How does a giant corporation (say, one that handles a massive urban design project, or designs airports, hospitals, skyscrapers)
What do we know that MBA's don't? I think maximum efficiency and free creative thought are, sadly, often opposing forces, But do they have to be? Are there examples where they aren't?
But eVo - I agree with the others. You're just smart, and your definition of architecture - in my book - is spot on. People are just resistant because they realize you know your own value - and they're looking to save money (hm, sound kinda "corporate"?)
yeah, the same architect who thought his employees were gonna steal his clients proposed that he outsource our drafting to india -- the day i decided to quit
on the other hand, compare OMA with SOM (new, not old. they really rocked when the dudes still ran the show). no idea about the small-ish firms you were looking at but maybe they really believed you wouldn't fit in. they might have been intimidated too.
making the switch from money-led to design-led isn't easy. i had to go back to school and do a shit load of projects to erase my built history.
out of curiosity why quit the slightly corporate office you were at in favor of a small firm?
Corporate means things like: Dozing off, Michael Bolton, dropped acoustical ceilings, cubicles, fluorescent lighting, popcorn machines,
disguise over honesty, sizzle-no steak, donuts, Appleby's, McMansions,
idle talk vs. conversation, mission statements, reserved parking, false security, bean-counting passing for 'design'...
It's pretty simple to define why it is 'perjorative.' Since I'm biased, I can't think of why it would be compelling (or any nice adjective).
outside of architecture though corporate is an entirely different proposition. It is 500 dollar dinners every day, villa in south of italy for a few weeks a year, a flat in london, a flat in tokyo, a flat in new york and travelling betweeen them continuously. It is armani suits or wal-mart blue jeans, but you have a choice...there is no mcmansion (too cheap), no applebys (too shite), no allsizzlenosteak (impossible, only sizzle means you ain't got the goods so fuck off daddio) no donuts (too unhealthy), the bean counting IS the mission statement....AND the buggers i know who live like that are apparently happy as hell. pejorative would be stupid. The corporate lifestyle can be a fulfilling one...
but that isn't the way it works for architecture. nah, in architecture if your corporate your a shmuck. look at rem rip portman, watch the world (of decidley non-corporate young weens) scoff at childs, hear the neo-socialist rants of the 20th century greats and it is clear that corporate is a no-no. and yet there are more jobs in that end of things than the other, so what gives? its gotta be more than half of the firms that run on money and not on starchipower or its weak equivalent. and yet the mood persists. no wonder the wae baern is confused. porr harvard trained wae baern...
no worries. there is room for it all under this earth, and why not...
Thanks for your responses. Prior to recent events I haven't found myself confused by the term corporate (I hate Wal*Mart and strip malls as much as anybody) - what I really became confused at is how I became labeled as such, and why, based on my understanding of the term, and in the terms that others were using to describe it, it was such a bad thing. Namely, that 'corporate' would mean a general organization in terms of goals, structure and environment. Some how not wanting to work day to day wondering about getting paid (or getting paid too little) and spending my time filing rather than designing or pushing a project forward is better in their eyes because it's not corporate...
I suppose you guys are right and that it depends on the size of the office, but I'm attracted to offices because of their design presence, not their size. The problem then arrises b/c the size to design influence ratio often seems directly linked, at least in the eyes of the architects... like Jump suggests, and ultimately part of my confusion: are you corporate if you work for OMA, or FOGA?
MSA was a good office because the size (30) didn't affect the design, managers were also skilled designers and $ was forthcoming. That's ultimately what I'm looking for again, and you should too, because then there would be fewer complaints here about jobs and quality of life... I left because my fiancee had a great job offer out here.
That you are looking in LA is important, because while this city offers a lot in terms of experimentation, it also means that there are quite a few creative, financially marginal firms fighting it out. I've interviewed with a good number of firms that seemed anxious to attribute their firms lack of success to clients who are too unsophisticated to see their vision. By that same token they seem to think the success of their peers has to do with those successful firms having compromised their values in favor of money.
Bullshit I say. With your background, comments like that come out of a lack confidence by the person interviewing you.
"i left because my fiancee had a great job offer out here."...(*&^&^^????
JUMP,
You're right, there is room for everybody. Just make sure that your 'room'
is a buffer between my room & the board room....or in most cases, break/conferenc/training room.
Janosh, I'd be interested to hear of firms you'd recommend pursuing (here or via email) and Puddles, for her you would too:)
ha! m. mystery
it is a funny profession where we are taught to be designers then have to be businessmen and become confused with the idea that they are exclusive endeavours. I used to work for this guy link as a project architect, and as a designer it was one of the funnest times I have had working for someone else; but the experience also underlined the challenge of balancing business with design. The often complained about lack of job security has never bothered me, but the need for media savvy and an ability to understand the clients is something many small firms struggle with and really need to master if they want to take the next step. The challenge being how to do this without turning vanilla. OMA seems to be able to do it. SOM clearly didn't survive their bigification. For Matthew the struggle was/is a hard one, but I still have hopes...
anyway if you think Rem FOG Zaha Holl Eisenmann etc don't know how to talk with the corporate world you be crazy. That they manage to be creative in spite of this is amazing.
Putting a barrier between you and the corporate world is a strange choice cuz not all corporations wanna do shit. It is sort of like living in a gated community isn't it, then making fun of all the lads and lasses who didn't qulaify to be inside. the folk i work for have taste or at least the sense to recognise that they can hire mine, and i am happy to design for them. why not? I don't want to BE them or run my office like them, though I wouldn't mind earning as much as they do. When I'll be able to pay US$12000 a month rent for a flat i have no idea but in the meantime i will happily design the flats for the folk who can afford it...
Once you sell your soul you can't get it back.
eVo,
I have no idea where that firm would get the impression that Macahado and Silvetti is corporate. They certainly do not fit the profile. I haven't seen any Machado and Silvetti spec office buildings yet.
I agree with the first two posts. I think by "corporate" s/he actually meant "successful." I always heard that Machado and Silvetti was more of a design-focussed boutique-type firm where you get worked like its a sweatshop. In any case, the business model certainly works to their advantage.
By the way, the Allston Library is effing gorgeous! If you worked on it, congratulations.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.